Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR

1. Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 05.12.2022 in Case Crime No.434 of 2022 under Section 302 of IPC, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow. The applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. At the very outset, attention has been drawn towards the bail rejection order of co-accused - Jitendra Yadav in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6166 of 2023 dated 06.05.2024, whereby while rejecting the first bail application of co-accused - Jitendra Yadav, this Court has directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial and liberty was given to the applicant to apply fresh bail after examination of fact witnesses.

4. After the examination of all fact witness, the aforesaid co- accused has filed his second bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11048 of 2024, wherein this Court passed an order dated 31.01.2025 that the learned trial court shall provide the current status of the trial.

5. In the present case, vide order dated 09.06.2025, this Court directed the learned trial court to provide the current status of the trial.

6. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the current status of trial has been provided by the learned trial court vide report dated 10.07.2025, the same is on record.

7. A perusal of the report dated 10.07.2025 reveals that 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined. As a matter of fact, all fact witnesses have been examined and the formal/ expert prosecution witnesses are being examined.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Learned counsel has explained the criminal history of the present applicant in Para 44 of the bail application and he has also submitted that there are total 20 prosecution witnesses, out of them 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

9. Keeping in a view the pace of the trial, there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicant with effect from 05.12.2022, he may be enlarged on bail. Since all fact witnesses have been examined, there is no likely to influence the witnesses or evidence. He undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if so granted.

10. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

11. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that there are total 20 prosecution witnesses, out of them 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra) and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the applicant may be released on bail in this case.

12. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant- Shiva Yadav @ Samsher Yadav, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

14. Before parting with, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial invoking the provision of Section 309 CrPC/ 346 BNSS fixing short date, if possible on day to day basis without giving any admissible adjournment to any of the parties. Order Date :- 14.7.2025/Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 05.12.2022 in Case Crime No.434 of 2022 under Section 302 of IPC, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow. The applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. At the very outset, attention has been drawn towards the bail rejection order of co-accused - Jitendra Yadav in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6166 of 2023 dated 06.05.2024, whereby while rejecting the first bail application of co-accused - Jitendra Yadav, this Court has directed the learned trial court to expedite the trial and liberty was given to the applicant to apply fresh bail after examination of fact witnesses.

4. After the examination of all fact witness, the aforesaid co- accused has filed his second bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11048 of 2024, wherein this Court passed an order dated 31.01.2025 that the learned trial court shall provide the current status of the trial.

5. In the present case, vide order dated 09.06.2025, this Court directed the learned trial court to provide the current status of the trial.

6. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the current status of trial has been provided by the learned trial court vide report dated 10.07.2025, the same is on record.

7. A perusal of the report dated 10.07.2025 reveals that 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined. As a matter of fact, all fact witnesses have been examined and the formal/ expert prosecution witnesses are being examined.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Learned counsel has explained the criminal history of the present applicant in Para 44 of the bail application and he has also submitted that there are total 20 prosecution witnesses, out of them 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

9. Keeping in a view the pace of the trial, there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, considering the total period of incarceration of the present applicant with effect from 05.12.2022, he may be enlarged on bail. Since all fact witnesses have been examined, there is no likely to influence the witnesses or evidence. He undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if so granted.

10. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

11. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that there are total 20 prosecution witnesses, out of them 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined and there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future; considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; K.A. Najeeb (supra), Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) and Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba (supra) and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the applicant may be released on bail in this case.

12. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant- Shiva Yadav @ Samsher Yadav, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

14. Before parting with, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial invoking the provision of Section 309 CrPC/ 346 BNSS fixing short date, if possible on day to day basis without giving any admissible adjournment to any of the parties. Order Date :- 14.7.2025/Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench